The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to the consideration of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014.
There's a commitment that I want to give you … There will not be deals done with independents and minor parties under any political movement that I lead.
I close with just one piece of gratuitous advice to all senators, and that is to remember the virtue of earning the respect of your colleagues on all sides of the chamber—earn their respect for your integrity, your decency, your passion, your commitment to your ideals and your willingness to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Senate divided [13:07]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That—
(a) the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 be called on immediately, have precedence over all government business and be considered under a limitation of time;
(b) the question that the bill be now read a second time be put immediately after the bill is called on and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be until 1.40 pm;
(c) subject to paragraph (d), this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(d) at the expiration of time, the question shall be put on all circulated amendments.
The Senate divided [13:11]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [13:14]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for consideration and report by 23 October 2014.
The Senate divided. [13:44]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [13:51]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [14:04]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [14:14]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [14:17]
(The President—Senator Parry)
We cannot accept that on New Year’s Eve you can’t attend your favourite restaurant because it is impossible for that restaurant to pay its staff to open up …
We need appropriate regulation of monopoly or near-monopoly uncompetitive port zones as we currently have in NSW.
IRU members support the direction of the legislation, which will provide a viable basis for universities over the next decade.
Either the status quo of ongoing inadequate investment, or further cuts without deregulation will condemn Australia's great university system to inevitable decline, threaten our international reputation and make it increasingly difficult for universities to meet the quality expectations of our students.
The status quo is not feasible as it will over time erode the quality of our education and research activities—not a good position to be in when our nearest Asian competitors are investing so heavily in these areas.
Our immigration responses should recognise the unique labour needs of different geographic areas and allow flexibility to properly respond to those needs.
If you’re going down the path of copying us, you really need to look at impacts.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014:
The industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and research and development (R&D) levies in the agricultural sector, with particular reference to:
(a) an audit of reports, inquiries and reviews relevant to this inquiry;
(b) the basis on which levies are imposed, collected and used;
(c) competing pressures for finite R&D funds;
(d) the opportunities levy payers have to influence the investment of the levies;
(e) the opportunities levy payers have to approve and reapprove the imposition of levies;
(f) the transformation of R&D and marketing into increased returns at the farm gate, including the effectiveness of extension systems;
(g) collaboration on research to benefit multiple industry and research sectors;
(h) industry governance arrangements, consultation and reporting frameworks; and
(i) any other related matter.
That the Select Committee on Health be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 4 September 2014, from 3.15 pm to 4 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on its inquiry into forestry managed investment schemes be extended to 31 March 2015.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), during the sittings of the Senate, from 10.30 am, as follows:
(a) Thursday, 25 September 2014;
(b) Thursday, 2 October 2014;
(c) Thursday, 30 October 2014, followed by a public meeting;
(d) Thursday, 27 November 2014, followed by a public meeting; and
(e) Thursday, 4 December 2014, followed by a public meeting.
That the time for the presentation of reports of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be extended, as follows:
(a) Manus Island Detention Centre—to 27 October 2014;
(b) Australian Federal Police – Oil for Food Taskforce—to 26 November 2014; and
(c) illicit firearms—to 2 December 2014.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
According to the Australia Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), in a report released in 2010, between 60-80% of Australian adults have never used a financial planner. The report also asserted that the people that could benefit the most from financial advice are younger people and those with less wealth or income, however these are the two cohorts that seek financial advice the least.
There is little doubt that accessibility to financial advice and improved financial literacy would help a large number of Australians better manage their finances. However the cloud that hangs over the financial advice industry as a result of scandals and cover-ups is a large contributor to why financial advice is underutilised.
Over the last decade events such as the collapse of Storm Financial and managed investment schemes such as Timbercorp burnt many retail investors who sought out and received financial advice. The recent Senate Economics Committee inquiry into the activities of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission led to the presentation of compelling evidence and widespread publicity of the fraudulent activities that went on in the Commonwealth Bank subsidiary Commonwealth Financial Planning. Macquarie Wealth was also implicated by the Senate inquiry.
It is unsurprising that Australians are hesitant in seeking financial advice following these types of revelations. This is to the detriment of the vast majority of independent financial planners who are responsible and demonstrate professional conduct.
The current Government has also made it clear that they are more interested in protecting the financial services industry, especially the large banks which dominate the industry, rather than consumers. They are unwilling to ensure past incidences of wrongdoing are appropriately investigated and that the perpetrators are prosecuted. The ASIC inquiry recommended a Royal Commission into the activities of the Commonwealth Bank. Even with their penchant for Royal Commissions (Pink batts and Unions) the Government was pretty clear that they wouldn't be exposing the big end of town to proper investigation.
They are also unwilling to accept that the legislation and structures that govern the industry need changing. Their determination to unwind the previous government's future of financial advice reforms to the detriment of the consumer clearly demonstrated this. A coalition of consumer organisation including CHOICE and Seniors Australia united in their concern at the Government's actions.
It was extremely disappointing to see the Palmer United Party join the Government in the Senate to ensure the changes to the future of financial advice reforms were enacted through regulation. I hope the Palmer United Party takes a good look at the legislation when it arrives in the Senate and vote against the legislation to ensure consumers are protected.
This Bill is a small step in reforming the legislation that governs the industry by providing consumers with a clear differentiation between personal and general advice. It is a direction explored by David Murray in his Financial Systems Inquiry interim report. Surprisingly it is also a position that the Commonwealth Bank has recently advocated for. Media reports on August 29 indicated that the Commonwealth Bank thought renaming 'general advice' sales is a positive move forward.
I welcome the recognition by David Murray and the Commonwealth Bank that changes are needed in terminology.
A slight definitional change is an important first step in amending the Corporations Act to help improve consumer information. Under the Corporations Act 2001, financial product advice falls under two categories, personal advice or general advice. According to the Corporations Act 2001 Section 766B:
"personal advice is financial product advice that is given or directed to a person (including by electronic means) in circumstances where:
(a) the provider of the advice has considered one or more of the person's objectives, financial situation and needs (otherwise than for the purposes of compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 or with regulations, or AML/CTF Rules, under that Act); or
(b) a reasonable person might expect the provider to have considered one or more of those matters."
The term advice when it is used in reference to 'general advice' is misleading. Under the current legislation 'advice' is provided when, for example, a bank teller provides a customer with information about insurance. The aim of this Bill is to make it clear that when this insurance information is provided it is not advice based on any personal circumstances but is information provided by the teller because they are interested in selling a product. The term advice implies something beyond information. In terms of general advice for financial products this is not the case and therefore the Bill's purpose is to clear up the misconception.
The current government talks about our ageing population and the burden this may place on budgets in the coming years while undermining consumer protections in favour of their mates in the banking and big end of the financial services industry, many who have the vertically integrated business models that pose a systemic risk. This sends the wrong signals by locking in the mistakes of the past. This also means people will potentially continue to refuse to obtain the advice and information that they need to plan for the risks they face over their lifetimes and into retirement.
This Bill presents a straightforward change that the Parliament should adopt. The Government should heed the work done by the Financial Systems Inquiry, an inquiry they commissioned themselves. David Murray asserts in his interim report that:
"Consumers should have confidence and trust in the financial system and be able to expect fair treatment. Effective regulation that minimises misconduct and promotes fair outcomes will drive confidence and trust in the financial system."
It is clear that the Government has no interest in improving the financial services industry and the protection of consumers if it threatens the profits of the large banks and financial services companies. Evidence provided by the recent Senate Inquiry into the repeal of the Future of Financial Advice reforms demonstrated this.
The Greens are eagerly anticipating the final report of the Financial Systems Inquiry particularly in regards to consumer protections. I look forward to working with the industry and consumer groups to make real structural changes.
I again call on the Government to represent the consumers rather than the big end of town. There is a lot to do to improve the reputation of the industry and the protection of consumers. This Bill is just the start. There are many structural issues to tackle to ensure that consumers are protected from another ‘Storm Financial’ or fraudulent behaviour through a financial services company.
An improved financial advice system that is reliable and trusted benefits the industry itself, the consumer and the country as a whole.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) That the '2014 Great Cocky Count' report by Birdlife Australia and Western Australia's Department of Parks and Wildlife has estimated the rate of decline of the Carnaby's cockatoo in the Perth and Peel region at 15 per cent per year,
(ii) That the Carnaby's cockatoo is listed as an endangered species under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and in Western Australia under the state's Wildlife Conservation Act, and
(iii) the specific threats to the Carnaby's Cockatoo by ongoing clearing of the Gnangara pine plantation and clearing of native vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain; and
(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment (Mr Hunt) to require a specific, detailed environmental assessment of the impacts of the clearing being undertaken of the Gnangara pine plantation and of native vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the 168 million children worldwide working as child labourers face detrimental impacts to their physical, mental and economic development, and
(ii) G20 governments have the opportunity to use their collective purchasing power to tackle child labour;
(b) acknowledges the dedicated work of young VGen volunteers and their efforts to end child labour; and
(c) calls on the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to include discussion of child labour elimination on the G20 Labour and Employment Ministers meeting agenda occurring in Melbourne on 10 September and 11 September 2014.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the positive role that South Australian wind, solar and other clean renewable energy projects have had in creating jobs, supporting local economies and ensuring a sustainable energy future for the nation;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the move towards renewable energy in South Australia has created thousands of jobs and pushed down wholesale power prices, without creating supply problems, and
(ii) the following projects, which have all been put at risk by the release of the Government's Warburton Review, would see billions of dollars invested in the South Australian economy and create more than a thousand jobs:
(A) Senvion Australia's Ceres wind farm on South Australia's Yorke Peninsula, which would invest $1.5 billion into the economy and create more than 500 jobs,
(B) lnfigen Energy's Woakwine wind farm in South Australia's south-east, which would see more than 150 jobs created, and
(C) Pacific Hydro's Kyneton wind farm in the South Australian riverland, which would see more than 500 jobs created; and
(c) calls on the Government to give the South Australian renewable energy industry the confidence and certainty that it needs by recommitting to the full Renewable Energy Target.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The impact of the Abbott Government’s GP tax and medicine price hike on pensioners, the poor and the chronically ill.
THE federal government is preparing to give ground in one of the most heated fights over its budget reforms as Tony Abbott tells his colleagues to expect “refinements” to the $7 fee on visits to the doctor.
The Prime Minister has signalled the plan in private talks with Coalition MPs amid pressure from crossbench senators for drastic changes to the medical co-payment meant to generate $3.5 billion in revenue over the next four years.
Tasmania has a higher burden of chronic disease and higher smoking rates, and we need to do more to encourage preventive health care and chronic disease management. That is why I think the co-payment is probably going to affect Tasmanians more than it affects people in other jurisdictions.
… very high users will pay $145.30 extra per single, couple or family per year to reach the general patient safety net.
Some submitters questioned whether the increases in co-payments may result in unintended consequences due to the inability of some patients to fill their prescriptions due to rising costs. Submitters expressed concern that this may result in severe health consequences for vulnerable patients and increased health expenditure in the longer term as well as consequences for the pharmaceutical sector.
As health researchers have shown, costless medical care means that people go to the doctor even when they don't need to—
… driving up the cost for all of us.
The impact of the Abbott Government's GP tax and medicine price hike on pensioners, the poor and the chronically ill.
… international studies demonstrate that, with the exception of the most vulnerable patients, there is limited evidence that co-payments actually reduce health service use. The economic rationale for implementing co-payments is further confounded by evidence suggesting that healthcare costs increase due to preventable conditions not being treated and poorer control of chronic disease and greater hospitalisations
Now is not the time to strip money out of primary health care. It is the time to invest in primary care to ensure sustainability of the healthcare system. People need access to general practitioners to know what their healthcare needs are. General practitioners need access to pathology and imaging services in order to diagnose conditions early and put treatment plans in place.
In fact there is good evidence to suggest that there is a negative economic impact with patients using more expensive health care through the hospital system that could be delivered by general practice at a fraction of the cost. General practice has been, and remains, the most efficient component of the healthcare system, with general practice costs per patient remaining steady over the past 20 years, while hospital costs have continued to rise.
Studies have shown that, following the January 2005 increase in PBS copayments, there was a significant decrease in dispensing volumes observed across 12 of the 17 medicine categories, including anti-epileptic medication, anti-Parkinson's treatments, combination asthma medicines, insulin and osteoporosis treatments. Importantly, we also know that the copayment increase had a particular impact at that time on medicine utilisation by concessional patients.
Tasmania has a higher burden of chronic disease and higher smoking rates, and we need to do more to encourage preventive health care and chronic disease management. That is why I think the co-payment is probably going to affect Tasmanians more than it affects people in other jurisdictions.
In the decade to 2012–13, the percentage of medical services attracting out-of-pocket costs has either stayed the same or declined.
As economists have shown, the ideal modelling involves a small co-payment. Not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc.
I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee thanks the Assistant Minister for Education—
for her response. In light of the information received, the committee considers the measure to be compatible with human rights and has concluded its examination of the measure.
That Senator Rhiannon replace Senator Di Natale on the Select Committee on Health for 15 September and 16 September 2014, and Senator Di Natale be appointed as a participating member of the committee.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The purpose of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014 is to repeal the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 (the Act).
Australia is blessed with a diverse energy mix. Along with the traditional energy sources such as coal, which has powered our economy and our society for decades, we also have rich gas reserves which supply domestic power and through our exports make Australia an energy superpower.
Renewable energy also plays a role in our energy mix.
Ensuring Australia's energy security and addressing long-term questions relating to energy policy are a key priority for the Australian Government.
Australia is making significant investments in renewable energy.
$1 billion dollars of taxpayer funds have already been committed to nearly 200 ARENA projects across a suite of renewable energy types.
Industry has matched this investment with a further $1.8billion, taking the investment in Australian renewables to a total of $2.8billion as a result of the programme.
This is a very significant amount of money and comes on top of direct and indirect support that has occurred through the Renewable Energy Target scheme and various other state and territory renewable energy schemes.
The Government has been very clear that we are facing a Budget emergency and savings have to be achieved to return the Budget to surplus.
Passage of the Bill will transfer management and decision-making on Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) functions to the Minister and Department of Industry.
It is anticipated to deliver savings of almost $1.3 billion, as identified in the 2014-15 Budget.
The investments of more than $1 billion in projects will continue under this new arrangement. Contrary to what some may claim, Australia is not walking away from renewable energy.
I'll say again—$1 billion in taxpayers' funds, and another $1.8 billion in private funds has been invested in renewable energy projects under the ARENA banner.
By any definition, in any industry, that's a lot of skin in the game.
Established on 1 July 2012, ARENA's objectives were to improve the competitiveness and increase the supply of renewable energy and related technologies.
Financial assistance, largely through grants, has been provided to nearly 200 renewable energy developments including the construction of renewable energy projects, the research and development of various technologies and methods of deployment, and activities to capture and share knowledge gained through all these projects to advance the sector towards full commerciality.
ARENA has made significant progress towards achieving its objectives.
The investments have been made to support renewable energy projects across all stages of the innovation chain – from research in the laboratory to large scale technology demonstration projects.
The total value of these projects is around $2.8 billion. Some examples of projects currently being supported by ARENA include:
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the CEO of ARENA—Ivor Frischknecht, the Chair of the ARENA Board Greg Bourne and the three other Board Members Dr Brian Spalding, Judith Smith, and Betsy Donaghey who have been thoroughly professional in executing their duties under the ARENA Act. Under the Board's direction, ARENA has played an important role of increasing the competitiveness of technologies and the supply of renewable energy in Australia.
The Government will be ensuring that each project is well managed, meeting its' contracted milestones and contributing to the advancement of an industry that has seen considerable Government and customer funded investment in recent years.
This Government believes in providing the policy framework where Australian businesses can grow and compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace without relying on hand-outs.
We will be ensuring that $1 billion of existing investment and the knowledge shared as a result of this investment gets us closer to this goal.
This focus over the life of these projects will be to make sure that the investments that are already made help progress the renewable energy industry.
Delivering on these projects will allow Australia to take a pragmatic approach, focussing our capabilities to ensure that Australia is well positioned to take up technologies that work as they become commercial.
This Government supports renewable energy and acknowledges the important role it plays in Australia's diverse energy mix.
And this Government is making the tough choices to address Labor's debt and deficit disaster, returning $1.3 billion to the Budget as a result of this Bill.
But despite Labor's appalling record in managing the country's finances over their six years in Government, we still want to ensure the $1 billion of Government investments in the renewable energy industry provide projects with every chance to succeed to help advance the industry.
Specifics of the Bill
I now turn to the specific aspects of the Bill.
The Bill repeals the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011.
The Bill provides for the transfer of all of ARENA existing contracts and commitments to the Commonwealth, with the Department of Industry to assume management on the commencement of this Bill.
Those applications for financial assistance from ARENA which are undecided by the commencement time will lapse.
This Government supports the energy and resources sector. It is one our economy's most significant drivers of jobs, private sector investment and national revenue.
We recognise and value the sector's depth and its diversity and will continue to build a long-term framework that will seize our advantages, build on our strengths and consolidate Australia's global standing as an energy superpower.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present legislation that will benefit members and former members of the Australian Defence Force.
As a result of the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, a new methodology was implemented from 1 July 2013, to calculate the amount of permanent impairment compensation payable under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (MRCA).
This new methodology applies to persons who have an injury or disease already accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act (VEA) or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (SRCA).
Under these circumstances, the compensation payable under the MRCA is assessed taking account of conditions accepted under the VEA and/or the SRCA, to ensure that any compensation paid is assessed on a whole of person basis.
This compensation is referred to as transitional permanent impairment compensation.
The Bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively apply the new methodology resulting from the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements in circumstances prevented by the current legislation.
This is expected to result in an increased amount of MRCA compensation for some recipients. It should be noted that the retrospective recalculation is being undertaken on the basis that no person would be disadvantaged.
Where the new calculation would result in a lesser amount of MRCA compensation, the amount of the person's MRCA compensation would be maintained at the existing amount.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission began the retrospective recalculations for transitional permanent impairment compensation in January of this year.
This highlighted a technical barrier in the existing legislation that prevents the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensation in certain circumstances.
These circumstances are where the person's claim for permanent impairment compensation was the subject of a claimant initiated review by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, or a review by the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Under the existing legislation, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission has no power to reconsider these decisions.
This meant that the MRCA requires amendment to enable the new methodology to be retrospectively applied to recalculate the amount of permanent impairment compensation payable in these circumstances.
The amendments in this Bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to complete these reviews.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has now been in operation for 10 years.
The Act commenced on 1 July 2004 and was the first compensation legislation designed to cover the whole spectrum of military service.
The amendments in this Bill are an example of the ongoing fine-tuning that is necessary to ensure the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act continues to serve the needs of those who serve.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… work with state and territory governments, consider the costs to the individual and to society of failing to intervene in a timely and effective way to address speech and language disorders in Australia and address these issues in the development of relevant policies and programs.
The committee recommends that the federal government work with state and territory governments and stakeholders to ensure that parents and carers have access to information about the significance of speech and language disorders and the services that they can access to address them.
The committee recommends that the federal government working with state and territory governments, consider the costs to the individual and to society of failing to intervene in a timely and effective way to address speech and language disorders in Australia and address these issues in the development of relevant policies and programs.
The committee recommends that the federal government work with state and territory governments and stakeholders to ensure that parents and carers have access to information about the significance of speech and language disorders and the services that they can access to address them.
Youth offenders are complex and challenging for policymakers and practitioners alike and face high risks for long-term disadvantage and social marginalisation
Even though, to all intents and purposes, I am a successful communicator who has had access to a decent mainstream education, I still feel my opportunities and quality of life are impacted by the fact that I am non-verbal. But I am using this opportunity to ask for more support for communication specialists, including speech pathologists, who can help facilitate greater educational opportunities. That will give those of us who have little or no speech a greater opportunity to be heard, thus giving us agency over our lives and our ability to contribute to society at large.
The capacity to communicate verbally is fundamental to a person's development and wellbeing. The ability to learn effectively, to form meaningful and supportive relationships, to influence others, and to obtain and maintain employment can be significantly affected if a person is unable to verbally communicate.
… a person who suffers from a speech or swallowing disorder is susceptible to poorer educational outcomes, reduced employment prospects and increased likelihood of social, emotional and mental health issues.
… who had a language impairment at the age of five have up to seven times higher odds of poor reading, five times higher odds of mental health difficulties and three times higher odds of unemployment.
As opposed to the set of assumptions that this legislation is predicated on, people do want to work and they love the opportunity to meaningfully participate economically and socially
My experience, as well as in the research evidence, suggests that people are highly motivated to build independent lives. They actually do not, for the most part, want to be reliant on income support; they want to build independent, sustainable lives.
Our network opposes the introduction of the bill before you, fundamentally on the ground that we question the purpose of the bill—whether it is actually to punish people or to help people into paid work. We would think that we would all be united in the view that helping a person who is unemployed into paid work should be the goal, and we do not believe that this bill will achieve that goal—in fact, we think it will be counterproductive. That is based on our casework experience with the heavy penalty system introduced in 2006 and the many changes to that system since that time.
Worse than ineffectual, the policy is likely to be counterproductive because, once a person is sanctioned, they have no incentive to meet requirements, whereas in the current regime, where payments are recommenced upon compliance, there is a strong incentive for a sanctioned person to quickly meet requirements.
If you look at the number of appeals, the appeals also dropped. Our casework experience was that people were getting penalties but they stopped appealing because it was a much faster, better route for them to just re-engage and do a compliance activity.
The bill will not impact job seekers who cannot get work despite their best efforts. It will not impact those whose failure to meet their participation requirements is beyond their control and of course it will not impact the 98 per cent of job seekers who do not incur these types of failures. Rather, the bill targets those who have received but refused an offer of suitable work without a reasonable excuse or have been found after an in-depth assessment by the Department of Human Services to have been persistently and wilfully non-compliant.
In 2008-09, the year before the introduction of waivers, 644 penalties were applied for refusing work. In 2012-13, 1,718 penalties were applied for refusing work and 1,227 of these were waived. This means that on 1,227 occasions job seekers who had been offered a job refused that job and returned immediately to income support payment. For this reason, it is intended that job seekers who refuse work should not be able to have their penalty waived and return immediately to payment. We hope that this will provide sufficient incentive for job seekers to accept work when they are offered it.
In 2012-13 there were 28,237 penalties applied for persistent non-compliance; 73 per cent of these were waived and 30 per cent of these waivers were the job seeker's second or subsequent waiver. This indicated that unlimited waivers is undermining the deterrent effect of penalties by allowing a significant number of job seekers to persist in their non-compliant behaviour without consequence.
When jobs are sparse, it means that you've got to apply for more jobs to get a job.
His prospects of finding work are grim. He doesn’t have a driver’s licence because he’s never had access to a car, or someone to teach him to drive, and he can’t afford lessons; there are no trains and the bus service is patchy. He left school in Year 8 and while he’s done a couple of courses, he has no real qualifications.
So where does someone like Josh Smith move to? Would anyone employ him? And what about his kid? And, if he doesn’t move, what happens if he loses his dole payment for six months?
PTTEP's activities are in Australia and Australia can pressure PTTEP to solve this problem. The government of Australia has the power, the authority.
Any further issues relating to waters outside Australia are matters to be addressed by the company in consultation with the relevant government.
Grave, horrific human rights violations are being committed daily …
Many Australians are understandably apprehensive about the risk of becoming involved in another long and costly conflict in the Middle East.
I have had an exciting journey with Erica. I admired her, respected her and loved her. She was always humble, gracious, inspirational, always believed the best of people, was positive and happy, thrived on hard work and challenges. She always had great ideas and was a great role model and she mentored me.
The Salvation Army is greatly indebted to Erica—she contributed profound and remarkable reports and evaluations for us that have resulted in other successful funding outcomes.
As an organisation we will miss her.
Much of her work was pro bono and she lived the mission of TSA by her love, care and compassion for people who were hurting and disadvantaged.
She leaves a lasting legacy.
She set the bar high for herself and those of us who worked with her will continue to aim for Erica's standards in research, publication and collaboration.
I will miss her for her energy, her intellect, her compassion, her optimism, her individual style and her warmth.
Erica's contribution to the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, and the broader research community, will be greatly missed. We are fortunate to have as a legacy her research that will continue to support local government scholars.
Erica was a positive, forward looking and forward thinking person.
She would want us to pull together and to celebrate and to reward excellence and talent.
The Foundation in her name is going to do exactly that.
… it is to India's advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production.
It is best not to mess with us. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.
Over the course of seven years we have been able to grow to the point where we employ up to 35 people, not just in Portland but across the country and sometimes overseas … This would simply not have been possible without clear policies to support the growth …
The price of solar has dropped so far that our business division can now employ another 10 people across the state. You need the framework there while the industry and the technology develops, and then you can kick it away.
This is a government that wants to be seen as open for business but open for what sort of business? We're making a transition from a resource based economy to what?
As a result of the price disclosure impact, we have not replaced one departing full-time staff member and will be putting off another part-timer.
We already have high unemployment, especially youth unemployment, and the social problems that accompany this like drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence.
There are gaps in Aboriginal pharmaceutical programmes such as s100 and QUMAX (which is Quality Use of Medicines Maximised). In our area QUMAX does not apply and S100 does not subsidise the cost of Dose Administration Aids
That means aboriginal people requiring these doses have to pay for the service—we charge $6.50 per patient per week which is about half—
what it cost us to do them, and we pick up another $1.50 or so per pack from the 5CPA incentive payments
$6.50 is the absolute limit of people's ability to pay but now we will have to increase it
Unless other agencies pick up the tab, people will drop out of Dose Administration Aids.
We will be keeping the renewable energy target. We have made that commitment. We have no plans or proposals to change it … We have no plans or intentions for change and we have offered bipartisan support to that.
The bipartisan support policy has driven advances in technology and efficiency, refurbishment of milling infrastructure and the creation of new jobs. These significant investments (with a 15-20 year payback) increase industry confidence and broader investment across the sugar mills community.
… As the international focus on enhancing energy security through renewable electricity and biofuels increases, international competitors are leveraging expansion of their industry through generous renewable energy and biofuel subsidies, generating a step change in the economic profit possible from sugar production. The Australian sugar industry does not have the support of similar subsidies—and the Australian RET is modest in comparison.
The panel considers that the risk of significant policy change is better characterised as regulatory risk and is always present.
… the Panel recognises that repeal may result in adverse financial implications for existing investors.
Dear Commissioner Latham,
Below please find information about Paul Nicolaou's links to Group Colleges Australia (GCA), which could profit from government funding under the coalition government's changes to higher education. GCA is a donor to the Liberal Party. There are discrepancies in the disclosure from the NSW Liberal Party and GCA. I believe these matters warrant investigation by ICAC.
Mr Nicolaou is a former chair of the Liberal fundraising body, the Millennium Forum, and a non-executive director of GCA. This company is well placed to benefit from federal government reforms to higher education that will see millions of dollars of public money flow to private for-profit higher education companies, such as GCA.
In particular, ICAC may wish to consider:
Nationally, the private college sector has donated at least $300,000 to the Liberal Party in the past decade.
Donation disclosures suggest that GCA is the largest single political donor across the sector, providing almost $80,000 to the NSW Liberals since 2009 in 35 separate transactions.
In 2010 and 2011, before the NSW Coalition government came to power, GCA donated $53,249.
From June 2010 to July 2011, only $22,164 of the total $38,709 donations can be traced in Liberal Party records, leaving a discrepancy of $16,545 in donations not declared by the party.
Liberal Party disclosures show donations that may not have been declared by the company.
Disclosures lodged with the NSW Election Funding Authority reveal personal donations from the husband and wife team of GCA, Managing Director Alan Manly and General Manager Jennifer McCarthy, totalling $11,588 since 2010. Donations from Ms McCarthy only began to flow after corporate donations were banned in 2012. Since that time, Ms McCarthy has made individual donations to the party totalling $7,770.
According to public documents Ms McCarthy, who had not previously donated to the NSW Liberals, made her first donation of $3,500 in April 2012—two months after the legislation banning corporate donations was passed.
I can supply documentation for the above information which was obtained from an analysis of information on the NSW Election Funding Authority and the Australian Electoral Commission websites.
I request that these matters are investigated by ICAC to determine the legality of these activities.
Further, I believe an investigation into whether figures linked to GCA lobbied the Liberal Party in relation to recent changes to higher education policy is warranted. These changes will benefit private colleges such as GCA.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely …
My first day I wandered in and bumped into Tony Abbott coming out of the lift. Other teachers told me that he was a regular there because of his friendship with the college's owner, Alan Manly. They told me that it was Manly who had stacked the Warringah branch for Abbott's 1994 preselection.
GCA must by 1 December 2014 and 1 December 2015 provide TEQSA with evidence which demonstrates that GCA’s Academic Board:
i. has implemented systems to protect academic quality and integrity to meet the requirements of Provider Registration Standard 4
ii. provides academic leadership, develops and oversees progress in implementation of a culture of scholarship at GCA, and on staff professional development
iii. ensures GCA has appropriate numbers of suitably qualified and experience staff for management and delivery of its higher education courses of study, in light of actual and projected enrolments in the courses
iv. ensures quality assurance is implemented effectively to drive improvement of GCA’s higher education operations
v. undertakes systematic monitoring, review and improvement of GCA’s higher education operations, including through the collection and analysis of relevant data.
… UBSS is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and review by TEQSA, where it must evidence: academic quality, sound corporate governance, sound financial management …
… UBSS has full government approval to offer its Bachelor degree programs, equivalent to those offered by Australian universities, as the Australian government has certified it meets the above requirements.
The managing director of the Whitehouse Institute of Design, who is understood to have personally funded an unadvertised $60,000 scholarship for the prime minister's daughter, issued a direct "plea" to Tony Abbott to "reduce red tape across the board" in higher education at an exclusive event last year, but the institute says any suggestion these remarks were an attempt at lobbying or seeking to interfere with the regulatory process are "ridiculous".